Research Article www.acsami.org
Conjugated Polymer Energy Level Shifts in Lithium-Ion Battery Electrolytes Charles Kiseok Song,†,∥ Brian J. Eckstein,†,∥ Teck Lip Dexter Tam,† Lynn Trahey,*,‡ and Tobin J. Marks*,†,§ †
Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, United States § Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, 2220 Campus Drive, Cook Hall Room 2036, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States ‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: The ionization potentials (IPs) and electron affinities (EAs) of widely used conjugated polymers are evaluated by cyclic voltammetry (CV) in conventional electrochemical and lithium-ion battery media, and also by ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) in vacuo. By comparing the data obtained in the different systems, it is found that the IPs of the conjugated polymer films determined by conventional CV (IPC) can be correlated with UPS-measured HOMO energy levels (EH,UPS) by the relationship EH,UPS = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) eV, where q is the electron charge. It is also found that the EAs of the conjugated polymer films measured via CV in conventional (EAC) and Li+ battery (EAB) media can be linearly correlated by the relationship EAB = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EAC + (2.84 ± 0.22) V. The slopes and intercepts of these equations can be correlated with the dielectric constants of the polymer film environments and the redox potentials of the reference electrodes, as modified by the surrounding electrolyte, respectively. KEYWORDS: lithium-ion battery, conjugated polymer, electron affinity, cyclic voltammetry, electrolyte, organic photovoltaics
■
INTRODUCTION Conjugated polymers find use in numerous electronics applications because of their exceptional properties, which include mechanical flexibility, production scalability, and chemically tunable electrical/electronic properties.1−4 These materials have been successfully implemented in organic photovoltaic cells,5−8 organic light-emitting diodes,9−12 and organic transistors.13,14 Recently, conjugated polymers have also been employed in lithium-ion battery (LIB) applications to replace15−17 and/or enhance conventional carbon-based electrodes,18−20 and significantly enhanced battery performance has been reported. The LIB is a widely used energy storage system with applications that range from portable appliances to automobiles.21,22 An important LIB figure-of-merit is the specific capacity.23 One way to increase overall LIB capacity is to replace the ubiquitous carbon anode with one based on Si or Sn, which offer theoretical specific capacities of 4200 and 994 mAh/g, respectively, far surpassing that of graphite, 372 mAh/ g.24,25 The principal challenge facing Si and Sn battery anode technologies is managing the up to 320% volumetric expansion/contraction of the anode during LixM intermetallic formation in the charge/discharge processes.25 Repeated expansion and contraction cause destructive anode fragmentation, exposing fresh anode surfaces to the organic electrolyte. © 2014 American Chemical Society
These electrolyte materials readily undergo chemical reduction on the electrode surfaces, yielding passivating solid−electrolyte interface (SEI) films that irreversibly consume the Li+ ions essential for energy storage.26−29 For these reasons, active research efforts have focused on developing protective materials systems based on conjugated polymers to minimize cyclinginduced anode damage.17−20 Note that the electrochemical properties of polymers potentially useful for battery applications must be characterized in depth for the relevant electrochemical environment of use. Specifically, quantifying the energetics of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) are essential to understanding the aforementioned electrochemical properties. The conjugated polymer LUMO energy is especially important since it relates to charge transport and stability at the anode;18,19 and when the anode potential coincides with the polymer LUMO energy, the reduction of Li+ to Li occurs and SEI films form.23,27,28 However, note that conjugated polymer energy levels are typically derived from electrochemical measurements performed in completely different electrolyte environments than Received: August 13, 2014 Accepted: October 20, 2014 Published: October 20, 2014 19347
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Scheme 1. Conjugated Polymers Used in This Studya
a
2-EH = 2-ethylhexyl.
Table 1. Cyclic Voltammetry Experimental Parameters and Terminologies experimental detail
conventional system (CVC)
battery system (CVB)
working electrode reference electrode counter electrode electrolyte (conc.) solvent scan rate sweep range LUMO labeling (CV/absolute scale) HOMO labeling (CV/absolute scale)
Pt (0.20 cm2) Ag/AgCl (aq) in KCl (3.0 M) Pt TBA+PF6− (0.1 M) acetonitrile, anhydrous 100 mV/s −2300 to 2300 mV EAC/EL,C IPC/EH,C
patterned glass/Cu (0.50 cm2) Li Li Li+PF6− (1.2 M) EC:EMC (3:7) 10 mV/s 10−3300 mV EAB/EL,B IPB/EH,B
thiophene) (P(3POET)), poly(3-((2-methoxy-ethoxy)methyl)thiophene) (P(3MEMT)), poly[[4,8-bis[(2-ethylhexyl)oxy]benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′]dithiophene-2,6-diyl][3-fluoro-2-[(2-ethylhexyl)carbonyl]thieno[3,4-b]thio-phenediyl]] (PTB7), poly[N9′-heptadecanyl-2,7-carbazole-alt-5,5-(4′,7′-di-2-thienyl2′,1′,3′-benzothia-diazole)] (PCDTBT), poly[(5,5′-(4,8-bis(thien-2-yl))-2,6-(dihexyl)benzo[1,2-d;4,5-d′]bis[1,2,3]-triazole-alt-(4,8-bis(5-(2-hexyldecyl)thien-2-yl)benzo[1,2-b:4,5b′]dithien-2-yl)] (DT003CF), ActiveInk N2200 (Polyera Corp.), and poly(2,7-(N,N′-bis(2-ethylhexyl)-naphthalenediimide)-co-5,5′-(3,3′-bis(2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)-ethoxy)ethoxy)-2,2′-bithiophene)) (P(NDI-tegme2T)). The molecular structures are shown in Scheme 1. We report here that the estimated orbital energies of these conjugated polymers differ substantially with measurement technique, but also that informative predictive correlations exist between energies measured by UPS, conventional CV, and CV in a commonly used battery medium. Regarding experimental data, the ionization potentials (IPs), electron affinities (EAs), HOMO energies (EH’s), and LUMO
the commonly used LIB liquid carbonate battery electrolytes. Conjugated polymer thin films are conventionally characterized in moderately polar organic solvents such as acetonitrile with ∼0.1 M organic salt as the electrolyte. In contrast, LIBs typically utilize high Li+PF6− electrolyte concentrations (∼1.2 M) in mixtures of very polar solvents such as ethylene carbonate (EC) + ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC). Therefore, the frontier orbital energies of conjugated polymers of potential interest could, in principal, shift from those measured in conventional and LIB electrochemical media when estimated by cyclic voltammetry (CV). In this study, we quantify the frontier orbital energetics of a selected series of known and new conjugated polymers in LIB media and in conventional electrochemical media. To quantify HOMO energies without the intrusion of electrochemical medium effects, in vacuo ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) is also applied since this alternative method is commonly used to characterize the electronic structure of conjugated polymers.30−32 The conjugated polymers characterized in this study are P3HT, poly(3-(2-propoxyethyl)19348
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 1. CV scans of conjugated polymer films in 0.1 M TBA+PF6− in anhydrous acetonitrile. Positive and negative currents represent oxidation and reduction, respectively.
Table 2. Solution-Phase Electrochemical Data
a
polymer
IPC vs EFc (V)a
EAC vs EFc (V)a
EH,C (eV)b
EL,C (eV)c
literature EH,C/EL,C (eV)d
ref
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
0.032 −0.036 0.075 0.480 0.649 0.342 0.833 0.076
−2.13 −2.22 −1.79 −1.56 −1.59 −1.71 −0.86 −0.69
5.13 5.06 5.13 5.58 5.75 5.44 5.93 5.18
2.97 2.88 3.31 3.54 3.51 3.39 4.24 4.41
4.75/2.73 NA 5.13/NA 5.55/3.40 5.65/3.48 NA 5.97/4.32 NA
34 35 8 36 37
Estimated uncertainty range is 0.1 V. bCalculated from eq 1. cCalculated from eq 2. dData reprocessed according to eqs 1 and 2.
energies (EL’s) determined by conventional CV (CVC),33,34 by CV in a battery medium (CVB), and by UPS are first acquired and compared; all energy levels are reported on the corresponding absolute scale. Then, a brief discussion of the origin of the energy level shifts and apparent correlations follows. To aid in comparing data from different measurements, abbreviations and experimental details are summarized in Table 1. Details of experimental procedures and conditions are described in the Supporting Information.
converted to HOMO and LUMO energies with respect to the vacuum level using well-known eqs 1 and 2.35,36 Here, EH,C and EL,C represent the HOMO and LUMO energies, respectively, and IPC and EAC are the onsets of the E H,C = qIPC + 5.1 eV
(1)
E L,C = qEA C + 5.1 eV
■
(2) +
polymer oxidation and reduction peaks versus Fc /Fc, respectively, and q is the electron charge. The 5.1 eV is the commonly used conversion factor to relate the Fc redox couple formal potential (EFc = 0.630 V vs NHE37) to an absolute scale (ENHE = 4.5 eV).38 Although there is some literature discussion regarding the accuracy of this approximation, which does not rigorously account for the measurement phase (vacuum vs liquid),36 it pragmatically places the relevant energy levels on an absolute scale.36 Since there are several variants of eqs 1 and 2, the previously reported orbital energies of P3HT,39 P(3MEMT),40 PTB7,8 PCDTBT,41 and N220042 are recalibrated here to eqs 1 and 2 and are compared to values
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Cyclic Voltammetry with Conventional Electrolytes/ Electrodes. CV scans in 0.1 M TBA+PF6−/acetonitrile yield IPC (ionization potential in conventional medium) and EAC (electron affinity in conventional medium) data for the conjugated polymer series of this study, which are shown in Figure 1. The CV scans exhibit oxidation and reduction peaks with positive and negative currents, respectively, and peak onsets are found in the ranges of −0.32 to 1.03 V and −2.22 to −0.69 V versus Fc+/Fc, respectively. These potentials are next 19349
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 2. CV scans of conjugated polymer films in 1.2 M Li+PF6− in 3:7 EC:EMC. Positive and negative currents represent oxidation and reduction, respectively.
determined in the present study in Table 2. Note that the current values generally track those in the literature. These data are also compared to UPS data to assess the validity of eqs 1 and 2, as discussed below. The onsets of the oxidation and reduction peaks along with the corresponding energy levels on the absolute scale from eqs 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 2. Cyclic Voltammetry with a Battery Electrolyte/ Electrode System. The first CV scans from a three-electrode system in 1.2 M Li+PF6−/3:7 EC:EMC yield the EAB (electron affinity in battery medium) values of the conjugated polymers (Figure 2). After a complete scan, all of the present polymer films are visually bleached except N2200 and P(NDItegme2T). Note that IPB/EH,B values (ionization potential/ HOMO energy in battery medium) could not be obtained here due to competing Cu electrode oxidation (IPB of Cu ∼ 3.4 V vs ELi). Also, the EAB’s of several polymers could not be observed, presumably because their high-lying LUMOs lie beyond the Li plating potential (∼0.0 V vs ELi). Thus, only data for polymers with reproducibly measurable EAB values are reported. Next, eq 2 was modified by replacing EFc with the work function of Li (ΦLi = 2.49 eV43), as in eq 3, and polymer EL,B values on an absolute scale estimated. This yields EL,B values E L,B = qEAB + 2.49 eV
Table 3. Cylic Voltammetry Data in Battery Medium
a
polymer
EAB vs ELi (V)a
EL,B (eV)b
ΔEL (eV)
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
0.56 0.79 0.75 1.22 0.88 0.97 2.00 2.22
3.05 3.28 3.24 3.71 3.37 3.46 4.49 4.71
−0.08 −0.40 −0.33 −0.17 0.14 −0.07 −0.25 −0.30
Estimated uncertainty range is 0.1 V. bCalculated value from eq 3.
electron cutoff (SECO), the highest binding energy, and the He I source energy (21.22 eV).44,45 The VBM values of the polymer-coated Cu foils relative to the Fermi level (0.0 eV) were determined from the onset of the lowest binding energy. The IP, or EH,UPS, was then calculated from the sum of Φs and the VBM.44,46 Note that the UPS-derived EH,UPS values track the EH,C’s closely, but some discrepancies (ΔEH = EH,C − EH,UPS) as large as 0.72 eV are found (Table 4). However, ΔEH Table 4. UPS Data Summary
(3)
(LUMO energies in battery medium) close to EL,C; however, some discrepancies are apparent, the origins of which are discussed below. CV data and energy differences (ΔEL = EL,C − EL,B) are summarized in Table 3. UPS and CV Correlations. UPS data (Figure S2, Supporting Information were used to derive EH,UPS (HOMO energy in vacuo) from the work function (Φs) and the valence band maximum (VBM) values of the conjugated polymers on Cu foil. Here, Φs is determined from the averaged spectra of four measurements using the difference between the secondary
a
19350
polymer
EH,UPS (eV)a
ΔEH (eV)
EH,C,cor/ΔEH,cor (eV)b
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
4.52 4.73 4.78 5.07 5.24 4.73 5.84 4.81
0.61 0.34 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.72 0.09 0.36
4.66/0.14 4.58/−0.15 4.65/−0.13 5.17/0.10 5.36/0.12 5.01/0.29 5.57/−0.27 4.71/−0.11
The estimated error range is 0.1 V. bCalculated value from eq 4. dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 3. (a) IPUPS plotted against IPC and (b) EAB plotted against EAC for the present series of polymers. For (a), the best linear fit (R2 = 0.76) has a slope of 1.14 ± 0.24 and an intercept of 4.62 ± 0.10. For (b), the best linear fit (R2 = 0.90) has a slope of 1.07 ± 0.13 and an intercept of 2.84 ± 0.22. Red straight line indicates the best linear fit.
3.675 V), and other sources of energy level shifts, such as electrolyte concentration47−49 and solvation, must be considered.50−52 Classic examples of this effect include the EA shift of Tl+ (∼0.2 V) with increasing electrolyte concentration of 0.1 to 100 mM,47 and the O2 IP shift of 0.31 V at a Pt electrode on changing the solvent from DMSO to acetonitrile.51 In the present case, CVC and CVB measurements are conducted in 0.1 M TBA+PF6−/acetonitrile and 1.2 M Li+PF6−/EC:EMC, respectively, corresponding to a large change in electrochemical environment. Similar to D’Andrade’s approach,35 the EAC and EAB data for the present polymers are plotted against each other in Figure 3b. A reasonable linear correlation (R2 = 0.90) is observed, indicating that the orbital energetics from one measurement are approximately translatable to the other within the −2.4 to −0.4 V range. Thus, EAs of conjugated polymers in a battery medium can be estimated (EAB,est) from CVC measurements using eq 6. The parameters in this equation
is significantly reduced (ΔEH,cor) when the correction suggested by D’Andrade35 (eq 4) is applied instead of eq 1. E H,C,cor = (1.4 ± 0.1) × qIPC + (4.6 ± 0.08) eV
(4)
In this model, EH,C,cor denotes the corrected EH,C value, and the slope of eq 4 reflects analyte image charge and solvation effects on the electrode surface interacting with the surrounding electrolyte, and the intercept of 4.6 is the Φs of ferrocene. D’Andrade argued that the image charges induced by an analyte on a conductive surface under vacuum or in a polar solvent skew the energy level correlation from unity. In general, the greater the image charge, the greater the slope, with the image charge directly proportional to the dipolar strength of the charged analyte. In the present study, a relationship similar to eq 4 (eq 5) is obtained by plotting IPC vs IPUPS (Figure 3a). E H,C, cor = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) eV (5)
The principal factors contributing to the disparities in the results of this investigation and D’Andrade’s model are the analyte solvation effects. D’Andrade et al. used small molecule analytes dissolved in the electrolyte for CV measurements, minimizing interanalyte molecule/ion interactions and maximizing electrolyte solvation. In the present study, CV is performed on solid thin films where solvation effects should be far less, but in which interanalyte interactions should be large. However, as D’Andrade et al. note, solvation effects should be small compared to the image charge effects for adsorbed analytes,35 contributing to the similarity of eqs 4 and 5. Note that UPS measurements are on analyte films cast on metal electrodes; thus, any disparities between eqs 4 and 5 should not originate from the forms of the UPS samples. EAC − EAB Correlations. For the same conjugated polymer, the orbital energies obtained from CVC and CVB are clearly different and likely reflect the different reference electrodes employed (Fc+/Fc vs Li+/Li). Furthermore, the frontier orbital energetics of the conjugated polymers are expected to vary with solvent and electrolyte concentration. If the origin of these differences is ascribed solely to the reference electrode, the analyte energy levels should uniformly shift with the potential differences of the reference electrodes. However, when EAC and EAB data are compared, the differences are significantly smaller than the reference electrode potential difference (EFc − ELi =
EAB,est = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EA C + (2.84 ± 0.22) V
(6)
afford insights into the relevant electrochemical phenomena in that the intercept (2.84 ± 0.22 V) is less than the reference electrode potential difference (3.675 V), but the slope is near unity, implying that conjugated polymers measured as thin films on electrodes by CVC and CVB experience minimal differential solvation effects. However, note that the slope is greater than unity when UPS and CVC data are compared. D’Andrade modeled such slopes by the ratio of the dielectric constants of the respective analyte media. The medium in D’Andrade’s model is the neighboring analyte in films for UPS, and electrolyte in CVhence, the dielectric constant differences are very large. In the present case, the analyte is not likely to be extensively solvated but embedded in a solid film in both CV experiments. Thus, dielectric constant effects in this model should be relatively small and a slope near unity is expected exactly what eq 6 reveals. Thus, the apparent orbital energy shifts primarily arise from the potential difference between the reference electrodes; however, as noted above, the electrochemical potentials are also affected by the electrolyte concentration,47,48 solvation,51,52 and image charge effects, which alter the working electrode potential, as well as that of the reference electrode.35,53,54 Indeed, EFc on the absolute electrochemical scale is 5.1 eV, while ΦFc = 4.6 eV. Similarly, ELi 19351
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
on the absolute scale is 1.44 eV, but ΦLi = 2.49 eV, where the differences likely originate from reference electrode−electrolyte interactions. A similar phenomenon is also observed with the SHE.55−57 These results signify that simple addition/ subtraction of a single parameter to convert orbital energies in one electrochemical environment to another can introduce significant errors. Note also that some polymers do not strictly follow the linear trend in Figure 3. This phenomenon may arise from differences in the polymer−electrolyte interactions; however, further studies will be required to better define these interactions.
Integrated Fabrication, Testing, and Instrument (NIFTI) and Keck Interdisciplinary Surface Science (KECK-II) facilities of Northwestern University’s Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center for UPS experiments, supported by Northwestern U., the State of Illinois, the Keck foundation, NSF-MRSEC, and NSF-NSEC. Finally, we thank Dr. Antonio Facchetti, J. T. Shin, and J. L. Song for helpful discussions.
■
■
CONCLUSIONS The orbital energetics of a series of established conjugated polymers were analyzed by CV in conventional and Li-ion battery solution environments, and by UPS in vacuo. By comparing data obtained from these two regimes, it is seen that the ionization potentials measured by conventional CV can be correlated with the UPS-derived HOMO energies via EH,C,corr = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) (eV) and the electron affinities of conjugated polymers measured by CV in conventional and Li+ battery environments can be linearly correlated by the relationship EAB,est = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EAC + (2.84 ± 0.22) (eV). The slopes and the intercepts of these equations are related to the dielectric constants of the analyte environments and the redox potentials of the reference electrodes as affected by the surrounding electrolyte, respectively. We expect that the correlations and their origins described here will be useful in analyzing/predicting the electronic structures of diverse conjugated polymers being considered for organic electronic and energy storage applications.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
More details of polymer synthesis, CV and UPS experimental methods, and data of the conjugated polymers are described. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail: [email protected] (L.T). *E-mail: [email protected] (T.J.M.). Author Contributions ∥
REFERENCES
(1) Nyholm, L.; Nystrom, G.; Mihranyan, A.; Stromme, M. Toward Flexible Polymer and Paper-Based Energy Storage Devices. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 3751−3769. (2) Mahapatra, S. S.; Yadav, S. K.; Yoo, H. J.; Cho, J. W. Highly Stretchable, Transparent and Scalable Elastomers with Tunable Dielectric Permittivity. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 7686−7691. (3) Manceau, M.; Angmo, D.; Jorgensen, M.; Krebs, F. C. ITO-Free Flexible Polymer Solar Cells: From Small Model Devices to Roll-toRoll Processed Large Modules. Org. Electron. 2011, 12, 566−574. (4) Wolf, M. O.; Wrighton, M. S. Tunable Electron-Density at a Rhenium Carbonyl Complex Coordinated to the Conducting Polymer Poly[5,5′-(2-thienyl)-2,2′-bithiazole]. Chem. Mater. 1994, 6, 1526− 1533. (5) Dang, M. T.; Hirsch, L.; Wantz, G. P3HT:PCBM, Best Seller in Polymer Photovoltaic Research. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 3597−3602. (6) Guo, X. G.; Zhou, N. J.; Lou, S. J.; Smith, J.; Tice, D. B.; Hennek, J. W.; Ortiz, R. P.; Navarrete, J. T. L.; Li, S. Y.; Strzalka, J.; Chen, L. X.; Chang, R. P. H.; Facchetti, A.; Marks, T. J. Polymer Solar Cells with Enhanced Fill Factors. Nat. Photonics 2013, 7, 825−833. (7) Park, S. H.; Roy, A.; Beaupre, S.; Cho, S.; Coates, N.; Moon, J. S.; Moses, D.; Leclerc, M.; Lee, K.; Heeger, A. J. Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells with Internal Quantum Efficiency Approaching 100%. Nat. Photonics 2009, 3, 297−303. (8) Liang, Y. Y.; Xu, Z.; Xia, J. B.; Tsai, S. T.; Wu, Y.; Li, G.; Ray, C.; Yu, L. P. For the Bright Future-Bulk Heterojunction Polymer Solar Cells with Power Conversion Efficiency of 7.4%. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, E135−E138. (9) Burroughes, J. H.; Bradley, D. D. C.; Brown, A. R.; Marks, R. N.; Mackay, K.; Friend, R. H.; Burns, P. L.; Holmes, A. B. Light-EmittingDiodes Based on Conjugated Polymers. Nature 1990, 347, 539−541. (10) Han, T. H.; Lee, Y.; Choi, M. R.; Woo, S. H.; Bae, S. H.; Hong, B. H.; Ahn, J. H.; Lee, T. W. Extremely Efficient Flexible Organic Light-Emitting Diodes with Modified Graphene Anode. Nat. Photonics 2012, 6, 105−110. (11) Liu, Y.; Liu, M. S.; Jen, A. K.-Y. Synthesis and Characterization of a Novel and Highly Efficient Light-Emitting Polymer. Acta Polym. 1999, 50, 105−108. (12) Cheng, Y. J.; Liu, M. S.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, Y. H.; Huang, F.; Ka, J. W.; Yip, H. L.; Tian, Y. Q.; Jen, A. K. Y. Thermally Cross-Linkable Hole-Transporting Materials on Conducting Polymer: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications for Polymer Light-Emitting Devices. Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, 413−422. (13) Lee, J.; Kaake, L. G.; Cho, J. H.; Zhu, X. Y.; Lodge, T. P.; Frisbie, C. D. Ion Gel-Gated Polymer Thin-Film Transistors: Operating Mechanism and Characterization of Gate Dielectric Capacitance, Switching Speed, and Stability. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 8972−8981. (14) Sirringhaus, H.; Kawase, T.; Friend, R. H.; Shimoda, T.; Inbasekaran, M.; Wu, W.; Woo, E. P. High-Resolution Inkjet Printing of All-Polymer Transistor Circuits. Science 2000, 290, 2123−2126. (15) Choi, W.; Harada, D.; Oyaizu, K.; Nishide, H. Aqueous Electrochemistry of Poly(vinylanthraquinone) for Anode-Active Materials in High-Density and Rechargeable Polymer/Air Batteries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 19839−19843. (16) Song, Z.; Qian, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, H.; Otani, M.; Zhou, H. A Quinone Based Oligomeric Lithium Salt for Superior Li-Organic Battery. Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, DOI: 10.1039/ C4EE02575J.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN) (C.K.S.) and by the Argonne-Northwestern Solar Energy Research (ANSER) Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Award Number DE-SC0001059 (B.J.E.). This research was also supported by the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR; T.L.D.T.). We acknowledge the Integrated Molecular Structure Education and Research Center (IMSERC) for molecular characterization facilities for NMR spectroscopy supported by Northwestern U., the NSF under grants CHE-0923236 and CHE-9871268, Pfizer, and the State of Illinois. We also thank the Nanoscale 19352
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
(17) Zhu, L. M.; Niu, Y. J.; Cao, Y. L.; Lei, A. W.; Ai, X. P.; Yang, H. X. n-Type Redox Behaviors of Polybithiophene and Its Implications for Anodic Li and Na Storage Materials. Electrochim. Acta 2012, 78, 27−31. (18) Liu, G.; Xun, S. D.; Vukmirovic, N.; Song, X. Y.; Olalde-Velasco, P.; Zheng, H. H.; Battaglia, V. S.; Wang, L. W.; Yang, W. L. Polymers with Tailored Electronic Structure for High Capacity Lithium Battery Electrodes. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4679−4683. (19) Wu, M. Y.; Xiao, X. C.; Vukmirovic, N.; Xun, S. D.; Das, P. K.; Song, X. Y.; Olalde-Velasco, P.; Wang, D. D.; Weber, A. Z.; Wang, L. W.; Battaglia, V. S.; Yang, W. L.; Liu, G. Toward an Ideal Polymer Binder Design for High-Capacity Battery Anodes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 12048−12056. (20) Xun, S. D.; Song, X. Y.; Battaglia, V.; Liu, G. Conductive Polymer Binder-Enabled Cycling of Pure Tin Nanoparticle Composite Anode Electrodes for a Lithium-Ion Battery. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2013, 160, A849−A855. (21) Etacheri, V.; Marom, R.; Elazari, R.; Salitra, G.; Aurbach, D. Challenges in the Development of Advanced Li-Ion Batteries: A Review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3243−3262. (22) Goodenough, J. B. Evolution of Strategies for Modern Rechargeable Batteries. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 1053−1061. (23) Goodenough, J. B.; Kim, Y. Challenges for Rechargeable Li Batteries. Chem. Mater. 2010, 22, 587−603. (24) Larcher, D.; Beattie, S.; Morcrette, M.; Edstroem, K.; Jumas, J. C.; Tarascon, J. M. Recent Findings and Prospects in the Field of Pure Metals as Negative Electrodes for Li-Ion Batteries. J. Mater. Chem. 2007, 17, 3759−3772. (25) Zhang, W. J. A Review of the Electrochemical Performance of Alloy Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 13−24. (26) Aurbach, D.; Gamolsky, K.; Markovsky, B.; Salitra, G.; Gofer, Y.; Heider, U.; Oesten, R.; Schmidt, M. The Study of Surface Phenomena Related to Electrochemical Lithium Intercalation into LixMOy Host Materials (M = Ni, Mn). J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000, 147, 1322−1331. (27) Xu, K.; von Cresce, A. Interfacing Electrolytes with Electrodes in Li Ion Batteries. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 9849−9864. (28) Verma, P.; Maire, P.; Novak, P. A Review of the Features and Analyses of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase in Li-Ion Batteries. Electrochim. Acta 2010, 55, 6332−6341. (29) Zhang, D.; Haran, B. S.; Durairajan, A.; White, R. E.; Podrazhansky, Y.; Popov, B. N. Studies on Capacity Fade of Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Power Sources 2000, 91, 122−129. (30) Lange, I.; Blakesley, J. C.; Frisch, J.; Vollmer, A.; Koch, N.; Neher, D. Band Bending in Conjugated Polymer Layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 216402. (31) Lange, I.; Kniepert, J.; Pingel, P.; Dumsch, I.; Allard, S.; Janietz, S.; Scherf, U.; Neher, D. Correlation between the Open Circuit Voltage and the Energetics of Organic Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 3865−3871. (32) Lee, J. H.; Shin, J. H.; Song, J. Y.; Wang, W. F.; Schlaf, R.; Kim, K. J.; Yi, Y. Interface Formation between ZnO Nanorod Arrays and Polymers (PCBM and P3HT) for Organic Solar Cells. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 26342−26348. (33) Djurovich, P. I.; Mayo, E. I.; Forrest, S. R.; Thompson, M. E. Measurement of the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital Energies of Molecular Organic Semiconductors. Org. Electron. 2009, 10, 515− 520. (34) Chen, E. S.; Chen, E. C. M.; Sane, N.; Talley, L.; Kozanecki, N.; Shulze, S. Classification of Organic Molecules to Obtain Electron Affinities from Half Wave Reduction Potentials: The Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 9319−9329. (35) D’Andrade, B. W.; Datta, S.; Forrest, S. R.; Djurovich, P.; Polikarpov, E.; Thompson, M. E. Relationship between the Ionization and Oxidation Potentials of Molecular Organic Semiconductors. Org. Electron. 2005, 6, 11−20. (36) Cardona, C. M.; Li, W.; Kaifer, A. E.; Stockdale, D.; Bazan, G. C. Electrochemical Considerations for Determining Absolute Frontier
Orbital Energy Levels of Conjugated Polymers for Solar Cell Applications. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 2367−2371. (37) Pavlishchuk, V. V.; Addison, A. W. Conversion Constants for Redox Potentials Measured Versus Different Reference Electrodes in Acetonitrile Solutions at 25°C. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2000, 298, 97−102. (38) Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2001. (39) Hou, J. H.; Tan, Z. A.; Yan, Y.; He, Y. J.; Yang, C. H.; Li, Y. F. Synthesis and Photovoltaic Properties of Two-Dimensional Conjugated Polythiophenes with Bi(thienylenevinylene) Side Chains. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4911−4916. (40) Mccullough, R. D.; Williams, S. P. Toward Tuning Electrical and Optical-Properties in Conjugated Polymers Using Side-Chains: Highly Conductive Head-to-Tail, Heteroatom-Functionalized Polythiophenes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 11608−11609. (41) Blouin, N.; Michaud, A.; Leclerc, M. A Low-Bandgap Poly(2,7carbazole) Derivative for Use in High-Performance Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 2295−2300. (42) Chen, Z. H.; Zheng, Y.; Yan, H.; Facchetti, A. Naphthalenedicarboximide- vs Perylenedicarboximide-Based Copolymers. Synthesis and Semiconducting Properties in Bottom-Gate N-Channel Organic Transistors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 8−9. (43) Anderson, P. A. The Work Function of Lithium. Phys. Rev. 1949, 75, 1205−1207. (44) Schroeder, P. G.; France, C. B.; Park, J. B.; Parkinson, B. A. Orbital Alignment and Morphology of Pentacene Deposited on Au(111) and SnS2 Studied Using Photoemission Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 2253−2261. (45) Yi, Y.; Lyon, J. E.; Beerbom, M. M.; Schlaf, R. Characterization of Indium Tin Oxide Surfaces and Interfaces Using Low Intensity XRay Photoemission Spectroscopy. J. Appl. Phys. 2006, 100, 093719. (46) Song, C. K.; White, A. C.; Zeng, L.; Leever, B. J.; Clark, M. D.; Emery, J. D.; Lou, S. J.; Timalsina, A.; Chen, L. X.; Bedzyk, M. J.; Marks, T. J. Systematic Investigation of Organic Photovoltaic Cell Charge Injection/Performance Modulation by Dipolar Organosilane Interfacial Layers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 9224−9240. (47) Ciszkowska, M.; Osteryoung, J. G. Voltammetry of Metals at Mercury Film Microelectrodes in the Absence and the Presence of Varying Concentrations of Supporting Electrolyte. Anal. Chem. 1995, 67, 1125−1131. (48) Lindstrom, H.; Sodergren, S.; Solbrand, A.; Rensmo, H.; Hjelm, J.; Hagfeldt, A.; Lindquist, S. E. Li+ Ion Insertion in TiO2 (anatase). 2. Voltammetry on Nanoporous Films. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 7717−7722. (49) Daum, P.; Murray, R. W. Charge-Transfer Diffusion Rates and Activity Relationships during Oxidation and Reduction of PlasmaPolymerized Vinylferrocene Films. J. Phys. Chem. 1981, 85, 389−396. (50) Kadish, K. M.; Morrison, M. M. Solvent and Substituent Effects on the Redox Reactions of Para-Substituted Tetraphenylporphyrin. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 3326−3328. (51) Sawyer, D. T.; Chlericato, G.; Angelis, C. T.; Nanni, E. J.; Tsuchiya, T. Effects of Media and Electrode Materials on the Electrochemical Reduction of Dioxygen. Anal. Chem. 1982, 54, 1720− 1724. (52) Eslami, M.; Zare, H. R.; Namazian, M. The Effect of Solvents on the Electrochemical Behavior of Homogentisic Acid. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2014, 720−721, 76−83. (53) Fleischmann, M.; Hendra, P. J.; Mcquilla, A. J. Raman-Spectra of Pyridine Adsorbed at a Silver Electrode. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 26, 163−166. (54) Andreas, H. A.; Conway, B. E. Examination of the Double-Layer Capacitance of an High Specific-Area C-cloth Electrode as Titrated from Acidic to Alkaline pHs. Electrochim. Acta 2006, 51, 6510−6520. (55) Isse, A. A.; Gennaro, A. Absolute Potential of the Standard Hydrogen Electrode and the Problem of Interconversion of Potentials in Different Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 7894−7899. (56) Trasatti, S. The “Absolute” Electrode PotentialThe End of the Story. Electrochim. Acta 1990, 35, 269−271. 19353
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
(57) Trasatti, S. The Absolute Electrode Potential: An Explanatory Note (Recommendations 1986). Pure Appl. Chem. 1986, 58, 955−966.
19354
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
Conjugated Polymer Energy Level Shifts in Lithium-Ion Battery Electrolytes Charles Kiseok Song,†,∥ Brian J. Eckstein,†,∥ Teck Lip Dexter Tam,† Lynn Trahey,*,‡ and Tobin J. Marks*,†,§ †
Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, United States § Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, 2220 Campus Drive, Cook Hall Room 2036, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States ‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: The ionization potentials (IPs) and electron affinities (EAs) of widely used conjugated polymers are evaluated by cyclic voltammetry (CV) in conventional electrochemical and lithium-ion battery media, and also by ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) in vacuo. By comparing the data obtained in the different systems, it is found that the IPs of the conjugated polymer films determined by conventional CV (IPC) can be correlated with UPS-measured HOMO energy levels (EH,UPS) by the relationship EH,UPS = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) eV, where q is the electron charge. It is also found that the EAs of the conjugated polymer films measured via CV in conventional (EAC) and Li+ battery (EAB) media can be linearly correlated by the relationship EAB = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EAC + (2.84 ± 0.22) V. The slopes and intercepts of these equations can be correlated with the dielectric constants of the polymer film environments and the redox potentials of the reference electrodes, as modified by the surrounding electrolyte, respectively. KEYWORDS: lithium-ion battery, conjugated polymer, electron affinity, cyclic voltammetry, electrolyte, organic photovoltaics
■
INTRODUCTION Conjugated polymers find use in numerous electronics applications because of their exceptional properties, which include mechanical flexibility, production scalability, and chemically tunable electrical/electronic properties.1−4 These materials have been successfully implemented in organic photovoltaic cells,5−8 organic light-emitting diodes,9−12 and organic transistors.13,14 Recently, conjugated polymers have also been employed in lithium-ion battery (LIB) applications to replace15−17 and/or enhance conventional carbon-based electrodes,18−20 and significantly enhanced battery performance has been reported. The LIB is a widely used energy storage system with applications that range from portable appliances to automobiles.21,22 An important LIB figure-of-merit is the specific capacity.23 One way to increase overall LIB capacity is to replace the ubiquitous carbon anode with one based on Si or Sn, which offer theoretical specific capacities of 4200 and 994 mAh/g, respectively, far surpassing that of graphite, 372 mAh/ g.24,25 The principal challenge facing Si and Sn battery anode technologies is managing the up to 320% volumetric expansion/contraction of the anode during LixM intermetallic formation in the charge/discharge processes.25 Repeated expansion and contraction cause destructive anode fragmentation, exposing fresh anode surfaces to the organic electrolyte. © 2014 American Chemical Society
These electrolyte materials readily undergo chemical reduction on the electrode surfaces, yielding passivating solid−electrolyte interface (SEI) films that irreversibly consume the Li+ ions essential for energy storage.26−29 For these reasons, active research efforts have focused on developing protective materials systems based on conjugated polymers to minimize cyclinginduced anode damage.17−20 Note that the electrochemical properties of polymers potentially useful for battery applications must be characterized in depth for the relevant electrochemical environment of use. Specifically, quantifying the energetics of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) are essential to understanding the aforementioned electrochemical properties. The conjugated polymer LUMO energy is especially important since it relates to charge transport and stability at the anode;18,19 and when the anode potential coincides with the polymer LUMO energy, the reduction of Li+ to Li occurs and SEI films form.23,27,28 However, note that conjugated polymer energy levels are typically derived from electrochemical measurements performed in completely different electrolyte environments than Received: August 13, 2014 Accepted: October 20, 2014 Published: October 20, 2014 19347
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Scheme 1. Conjugated Polymers Used in This Studya
a
2-EH = 2-ethylhexyl.
Table 1. Cyclic Voltammetry Experimental Parameters and Terminologies experimental detail
conventional system (CVC)
battery system (CVB)
working electrode reference electrode counter electrode electrolyte (conc.) solvent scan rate sweep range LUMO labeling (CV/absolute scale) HOMO labeling (CV/absolute scale)
Pt (0.20 cm2) Ag/AgCl (aq) in KCl (3.0 M) Pt TBA+PF6− (0.1 M) acetonitrile, anhydrous 100 mV/s −2300 to 2300 mV EAC/EL,C IPC/EH,C
patterned glass/Cu (0.50 cm2) Li Li Li+PF6− (1.2 M) EC:EMC (3:7) 10 mV/s 10−3300 mV EAB/EL,B IPB/EH,B
thiophene) (P(3POET)), poly(3-((2-methoxy-ethoxy)methyl)thiophene) (P(3MEMT)), poly[[4,8-bis[(2-ethylhexyl)oxy]benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′]dithiophene-2,6-diyl][3-fluoro-2-[(2-ethylhexyl)carbonyl]thieno[3,4-b]thio-phenediyl]] (PTB7), poly[N9′-heptadecanyl-2,7-carbazole-alt-5,5-(4′,7′-di-2-thienyl2′,1′,3′-benzothia-diazole)] (PCDTBT), poly[(5,5′-(4,8-bis(thien-2-yl))-2,6-(dihexyl)benzo[1,2-d;4,5-d′]bis[1,2,3]-triazole-alt-(4,8-bis(5-(2-hexyldecyl)thien-2-yl)benzo[1,2-b:4,5b′]dithien-2-yl)] (DT003CF), ActiveInk N2200 (Polyera Corp.), and poly(2,7-(N,N′-bis(2-ethylhexyl)-naphthalenediimide)-co-5,5′-(3,3′-bis(2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)-ethoxy)ethoxy)-2,2′-bithiophene)) (P(NDI-tegme2T)). The molecular structures are shown in Scheme 1. We report here that the estimated orbital energies of these conjugated polymers differ substantially with measurement technique, but also that informative predictive correlations exist between energies measured by UPS, conventional CV, and CV in a commonly used battery medium. Regarding experimental data, the ionization potentials (IPs), electron affinities (EAs), HOMO energies (EH’s), and LUMO
the commonly used LIB liquid carbonate battery electrolytes. Conjugated polymer thin films are conventionally characterized in moderately polar organic solvents such as acetonitrile with ∼0.1 M organic salt as the electrolyte. In contrast, LIBs typically utilize high Li+PF6− electrolyte concentrations (∼1.2 M) in mixtures of very polar solvents such as ethylene carbonate (EC) + ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC). Therefore, the frontier orbital energies of conjugated polymers of potential interest could, in principal, shift from those measured in conventional and LIB electrochemical media when estimated by cyclic voltammetry (CV). In this study, we quantify the frontier orbital energetics of a selected series of known and new conjugated polymers in LIB media and in conventional electrochemical media. To quantify HOMO energies without the intrusion of electrochemical medium effects, in vacuo ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) is also applied since this alternative method is commonly used to characterize the electronic structure of conjugated polymers.30−32 The conjugated polymers characterized in this study are P3HT, poly(3-(2-propoxyethyl)19348
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 1. CV scans of conjugated polymer films in 0.1 M TBA+PF6− in anhydrous acetonitrile. Positive and negative currents represent oxidation and reduction, respectively.
Table 2. Solution-Phase Electrochemical Data
a
polymer
IPC vs EFc (V)a
EAC vs EFc (V)a
EH,C (eV)b
EL,C (eV)c
literature EH,C/EL,C (eV)d
ref
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
0.032 −0.036 0.075 0.480 0.649 0.342 0.833 0.076
−2.13 −2.22 −1.79 −1.56 −1.59 −1.71 −0.86 −0.69
5.13 5.06 5.13 5.58 5.75 5.44 5.93 5.18
2.97 2.88 3.31 3.54 3.51 3.39 4.24 4.41
4.75/2.73 NA 5.13/NA 5.55/3.40 5.65/3.48 NA 5.97/4.32 NA
34 35 8 36 37
Estimated uncertainty range is 0.1 V. bCalculated from eq 1. cCalculated from eq 2. dData reprocessed according to eqs 1 and 2.
energies (EL’s) determined by conventional CV (CVC),33,34 by CV in a battery medium (CVB), and by UPS are first acquired and compared; all energy levels are reported on the corresponding absolute scale. Then, a brief discussion of the origin of the energy level shifts and apparent correlations follows. To aid in comparing data from different measurements, abbreviations and experimental details are summarized in Table 1. Details of experimental procedures and conditions are described in the Supporting Information.
converted to HOMO and LUMO energies with respect to the vacuum level using well-known eqs 1 and 2.35,36 Here, EH,C and EL,C represent the HOMO and LUMO energies, respectively, and IPC and EAC are the onsets of the E H,C = qIPC + 5.1 eV
(1)
E L,C = qEA C + 5.1 eV
■
(2) +
polymer oxidation and reduction peaks versus Fc /Fc, respectively, and q is the electron charge. The 5.1 eV is the commonly used conversion factor to relate the Fc redox couple formal potential (EFc = 0.630 V vs NHE37) to an absolute scale (ENHE = 4.5 eV).38 Although there is some literature discussion regarding the accuracy of this approximation, which does not rigorously account for the measurement phase (vacuum vs liquid),36 it pragmatically places the relevant energy levels on an absolute scale.36 Since there are several variants of eqs 1 and 2, the previously reported orbital energies of P3HT,39 P(3MEMT),40 PTB7,8 PCDTBT,41 and N220042 are recalibrated here to eqs 1 and 2 and are compared to values
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Cyclic Voltammetry with Conventional Electrolytes/ Electrodes. CV scans in 0.1 M TBA+PF6−/acetonitrile yield IPC (ionization potential in conventional medium) and EAC (electron affinity in conventional medium) data for the conjugated polymer series of this study, which are shown in Figure 1. The CV scans exhibit oxidation and reduction peaks with positive and negative currents, respectively, and peak onsets are found in the ranges of −0.32 to 1.03 V and −2.22 to −0.69 V versus Fc+/Fc, respectively. These potentials are next 19349
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 2. CV scans of conjugated polymer films in 1.2 M Li+PF6− in 3:7 EC:EMC. Positive and negative currents represent oxidation and reduction, respectively.
determined in the present study in Table 2. Note that the current values generally track those in the literature. These data are also compared to UPS data to assess the validity of eqs 1 and 2, as discussed below. The onsets of the oxidation and reduction peaks along with the corresponding energy levels on the absolute scale from eqs 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 2. Cyclic Voltammetry with a Battery Electrolyte/ Electrode System. The first CV scans from a three-electrode system in 1.2 M Li+PF6−/3:7 EC:EMC yield the EAB (electron affinity in battery medium) values of the conjugated polymers (Figure 2). After a complete scan, all of the present polymer films are visually bleached except N2200 and P(NDItegme2T). Note that IPB/EH,B values (ionization potential/ HOMO energy in battery medium) could not be obtained here due to competing Cu electrode oxidation (IPB of Cu ∼ 3.4 V vs ELi). Also, the EAB’s of several polymers could not be observed, presumably because their high-lying LUMOs lie beyond the Li plating potential (∼0.0 V vs ELi). Thus, only data for polymers with reproducibly measurable EAB values are reported. Next, eq 2 was modified by replacing EFc with the work function of Li (ΦLi = 2.49 eV43), as in eq 3, and polymer EL,B values on an absolute scale estimated. This yields EL,B values E L,B = qEAB + 2.49 eV
Table 3. Cylic Voltammetry Data in Battery Medium
a
polymer
EAB vs ELi (V)a
EL,B (eV)b
ΔEL (eV)
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
0.56 0.79 0.75 1.22 0.88 0.97 2.00 2.22
3.05 3.28 3.24 3.71 3.37 3.46 4.49 4.71
−0.08 −0.40 −0.33 −0.17 0.14 −0.07 −0.25 −0.30
Estimated uncertainty range is 0.1 V. bCalculated value from eq 3.
electron cutoff (SECO), the highest binding energy, and the He I source energy (21.22 eV).44,45 The VBM values of the polymer-coated Cu foils relative to the Fermi level (0.0 eV) were determined from the onset of the lowest binding energy. The IP, or EH,UPS, was then calculated from the sum of Φs and the VBM.44,46 Note that the UPS-derived EH,UPS values track the EH,C’s closely, but some discrepancies (ΔEH = EH,C − EH,UPS) as large as 0.72 eV are found (Table 4). However, ΔEH Table 4. UPS Data Summary
(3)
(LUMO energies in battery medium) close to EL,C; however, some discrepancies are apparent, the origins of which are discussed below. CV data and energy differences (ΔEL = EL,C − EL,B) are summarized in Table 3. UPS and CV Correlations. UPS data (Figure S2, Supporting Information were used to derive EH,UPS (HOMO energy in vacuo) from the work function (Φs) and the valence band maximum (VBM) values of the conjugated polymers on Cu foil. Here, Φs is determined from the averaged spectra of four measurements using the difference between the secondary
a
19350
polymer
EH,UPS (eV)a
ΔEH (eV)
EH,C,cor/ΔEH,cor (eV)b
P3HT P(3POET) P(3MEMT) PTB7 PCDTBT DT003CF N2200 P(NDI-tegme2T)
4.52 4.73 4.78 5.07 5.24 4.73 5.84 4.81
0.61 0.34 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.72 0.09 0.36
4.66/0.14 4.58/−0.15 4.65/−0.13 5.17/0.10 5.36/0.12 5.01/0.29 5.57/−0.27 4.71/−0.11
The estimated error range is 0.1 V. bCalculated value from eq 4. dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
Figure 3. (a) IPUPS plotted against IPC and (b) EAB plotted against EAC for the present series of polymers. For (a), the best linear fit (R2 = 0.76) has a slope of 1.14 ± 0.24 and an intercept of 4.62 ± 0.10. For (b), the best linear fit (R2 = 0.90) has a slope of 1.07 ± 0.13 and an intercept of 2.84 ± 0.22. Red straight line indicates the best linear fit.
3.675 V), and other sources of energy level shifts, such as electrolyte concentration47−49 and solvation, must be considered.50−52 Classic examples of this effect include the EA shift of Tl+ (∼0.2 V) with increasing electrolyte concentration of 0.1 to 100 mM,47 and the O2 IP shift of 0.31 V at a Pt electrode on changing the solvent from DMSO to acetonitrile.51 In the present case, CVC and CVB measurements are conducted in 0.1 M TBA+PF6−/acetonitrile and 1.2 M Li+PF6−/EC:EMC, respectively, corresponding to a large change in electrochemical environment. Similar to D’Andrade’s approach,35 the EAC and EAB data for the present polymers are plotted against each other in Figure 3b. A reasonable linear correlation (R2 = 0.90) is observed, indicating that the orbital energetics from one measurement are approximately translatable to the other within the −2.4 to −0.4 V range. Thus, EAs of conjugated polymers in a battery medium can be estimated (EAB,est) from CVC measurements using eq 6. The parameters in this equation
is significantly reduced (ΔEH,cor) when the correction suggested by D’Andrade35 (eq 4) is applied instead of eq 1. E H,C,cor = (1.4 ± 0.1) × qIPC + (4.6 ± 0.08) eV
(4)
In this model, EH,C,cor denotes the corrected EH,C value, and the slope of eq 4 reflects analyte image charge and solvation effects on the electrode surface interacting with the surrounding electrolyte, and the intercept of 4.6 is the Φs of ferrocene. D’Andrade argued that the image charges induced by an analyte on a conductive surface under vacuum or in a polar solvent skew the energy level correlation from unity. In general, the greater the image charge, the greater the slope, with the image charge directly proportional to the dipolar strength of the charged analyte. In the present study, a relationship similar to eq 4 (eq 5) is obtained by plotting IPC vs IPUPS (Figure 3a). E H,C, cor = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) eV (5)
The principal factors contributing to the disparities in the results of this investigation and D’Andrade’s model are the analyte solvation effects. D’Andrade et al. used small molecule analytes dissolved in the electrolyte for CV measurements, minimizing interanalyte molecule/ion interactions and maximizing electrolyte solvation. In the present study, CV is performed on solid thin films where solvation effects should be far less, but in which interanalyte interactions should be large. However, as D’Andrade et al. note, solvation effects should be small compared to the image charge effects for adsorbed analytes,35 contributing to the similarity of eqs 4 and 5. Note that UPS measurements are on analyte films cast on metal electrodes; thus, any disparities between eqs 4 and 5 should not originate from the forms of the UPS samples. EAC − EAB Correlations. For the same conjugated polymer, the orbital energies obtained from CVC and CVB are clearly different and likely reflect the different reference electrodes employed (Fc+/Fc vs Li+/Li). Furthermore, the frontier orbital energetics of the conjugated polymers are expected to vary with solvent and electrolyte concentration. If the origin of these differences is ascribed solely to the reference electrode, the analyte energy levels should uniformly shift with the potential differences of the reference electrodes. However, when EAC and EAB data are compared, the differences are significantly smaller than the reference electrode potential difference (EFc − ELi =
EAB,est = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EA C + (2.84 ± 0.22) V
(6)
afford insights into the relevant electrochemical phenomena in that the intercept (2.84 ± 0.22 V) is less than the reference electrode potential difference (3.675 V), but the slope is near unity, implying that conjugated polymers measured as thin films on electrodes by CVC and CVB experience minimal differential solvation effects. However, note that the slope is greater than unity when UPS and CVC data are compared. D’Andrade modeled such slopes by the ratio of the dielectric constants of the respective analyte media. The medium in D’Andrade’s model is the neighboring analyte in films for UPS, and electrolyte in CVhence, the dielectric constant differences are very large. In the present case, the analyte is not likely to be extensively solvated but embedded in a solid film in both CV experiments. Thus, dielectric constant effects in this model should be relatively small and a slope near unity is expected exactly what eq 6 reveals. Thus, the apparent orbital energy shifts primarily arise from the potential difference between the reference electrodes; however, as noted above, the electrochemical potentials are also affected by the electrolyte concentration,47,48 solvation,51,52 and image charge effects, which alter the working electrode potential, as well as that of the reference electrode.35,53,54 Indeed, EFc on the absolute electrochemical scale is 5.1 eV, while ΦFc = 4.6 eV. Similarly, ELi 19351
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
on the absolute scale is 1.44 eV, but ΦLi = 2.49 eV, where the differences likely originate from reference electrode−electrolyte interactions. A similar phenomenon is also observed with the SHE.55−57 These results signify that simple addition/ subtraction of a single parameter to convert orbital energies in one electrochemical environment to another can introduce significant errors. Note also that some polymers do not strictly follow the linear trend in Figure 3. This phenomenon may arise from differences in the polymer−electrolyte interactions; however, further studies will be required to better define these interactions.
Integrated Fabrication, Testing, and Instrument (NIFTI) and Keck Interdisciplinary Surface Science (KECK-II) facilities of Northwestern University’s Atomic and Nanoscale Characterization Experimental (NUANCE) Center for UPS experiments, supported by Northwestern U., the State of Illinois, the Keck foundation, NSF-MRSEC, and NSF-NSEC. Finally, we thank Dr. Antonio Facchetti, J. T. Shin, and J. L. Song for helpful discussions.
■
■
CONCLUSIONS The orbital energetics of a series of established conjugated polymers were analyzed by CV in conventional and Li-ion battery solution environments, and by UPS in vacuo. By comparing data obtained from these two regimes, it is seen that the ionization potentials measured by conventional CV can be correlated with the UPS-derived HOMO energies via EH,C,corr = (1.14 ± 0.23) × qIPC + (4.62 ± 0.10) (eV) and the electron affinities of conjugated polymers measured by CV in conventional and Li+ battery environments can be linearly correlated by the relationship EAB,est = (1.07 ± 0.13) × EAC + (2.84 ± 0.22) (eV). The slopes and the intercepts of these equations are related to the dielectric constants of the analyte environments and the redox potentials of the reference electrodes as affected by the surrounding electrolyte, respectively. We expect that the correlations and their origins described here will be useful in analyzing/predicting the electronic structures of diverse conjugated polymers being considered for organic electronic and energy storage applications.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
More details of polymer synthesis, CV and UPS experimental methods, and data of the conjugated polymers are described. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail: [email protected] (L.T). *E-mail: [email protected] (T.J.M.). Author Contributions ∥
REFERENCES
(1) Nyholm, L.; Nystrom, G.; Mihranyan, A.; Stromme, M. Toward Flexible Polymer and Paper-Based Energy Storage Devices. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 3751−3769. (2) Mahapatra, S. S.; Yadav, S. K.; Yoo, H. J.; Cho, J. W. Highly Stretchable, Transparent and Scalable Elastomers with Tunable Dielectric Permittivity. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 7686−7691. (3) Manceau, M.; Angmo, D.; Jorgensen, M.; Krebs, F. C. ITO-Free Flexible Polymer Solar Cells: From Small Model Devices to Roll-toRoll Processed Large Modules. Org. Electron. 2011, 12, 566−574. (4) Wolf, M. O.; Wrighton, M. S. Tunable Electron-Density at a Rhenium Carbonyl Complex Coordinated to the Conducting Polymer Poly[5,5′-(2-thienyl)-2,2′-bithiazole]. Chem. Mater. 1994, 6, 1526− 1533. (5) Dang, M. T.; Hirsch, L.; Wantz, G. P3HT:PCBM, Best Seller in Polymer Photovoltaic Research. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 3597−3602. (6) Guo, X. G.; Zhou, N. J.; Lou, S. J.; Smith, J.; Tice, D. B.; Hennek, J. W.; Ortiz, R. P.; Navarrete, J. T. L.; Li, S. Y.; Strzalka, J.; Chen, L. X.; Chang, R. P. H.; Facchetti, A.; Marks, T. J. Polymer Solar Cells with Enhanced Fill Factors. Nat. Photonics 2013, 7, 825−833. (7) Park, S. H.; Roy, A.; Beaupre, S.; Cho, S.; Coates, N.; Moon, J. S.; Moses, D.; Leclerc, M.; Lee, K.; Heeger, A. J. Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells with Internal Quantum Efficiency Approaching 100%. Nat. Photonics 2009, 3, 297−303. (8) Liang, Y. Y.; Xu, Z.; Xia, J. B.; Tsai, S. T.; Wu, Y.; Li, G.; Ray, C.; Yu, L. P. For the Bright Future-Bulk Heterojunction Polymer Solar Cells with Power Conversion Efficiency of 7.4%. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, E135−E138. (9) Burroughes, J. H.; Bradley, D. D. C.; Brown, A. R.; Marks, R. N.; Mackay, K.; Friend, R. H.; Burns, P. L.; Holmes, A. B. Light-EmittingDiodes Based on Conjugated Polymers. Nature 1990, 347, 539−541. (10) Han, T. H.; Lee, Y.; Choi, M. R.; Woo, S. H.; Bae, S. H.; Hong, B. H.; Ahn, J. H.; Lee, T. W. Extremely Efficient Flexible Organic Light-Emitting Diodes with Modified Graphene Anode. Nat. Photonics 2012, 6, 105−110. (11) Liu, Y.; Liu, M. S.; Jen, A. K.-Y. Synthesis and Characterization of a Novel and Highly Efficient Light-Emitting Polymer. Acta Polym. 1999, 50, 105−108. (12) Cheng, Y. J.; Liu, M. S.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, Y. H.; Huang, F.; Ka, J. W.; Yip, H. L.; Tian, Y. Q.; Jen, A. K. Y. Thermally Cross-Linkable Hole-Transporting Materials on Conducting Polymer: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications for Polymer Light-Emitting Devices. Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, 413−422. (13) Lee, J.; Kaake, L. G.; Cho, J. H.; Zhu, X. Y.; Lodge, T. P.; Frisbie, C. D. Ion Gel-Gated Polymer Thin-Film Transistors: Operating Mechanism and Characterization of Gate Dielectric Capacitance, Switching Speed, and Stability. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 8972−8981. (14) Sirringhaus, H.; Kawase, T.; Friend, R. H.; Shimoda, T.; Inbasekaran, M.; Wu, W.; Woo, E. P. High-Resolution Inkjet Printing of All-Polymer Transistor Circuits. Science 2000, 290, 2123−2126. (15) Choi, W.; Harada, D.; Oyaizu, K.; Nishide, H. Aqueous Electrochemistry of Poly(vinylanthraquinone) for Anode-Active Materials in High-Density and Rechargeable Polymer/Air Batteries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 19839−19843. (16) Song, Z.; Qian, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, H.; Otani, M.; Zhou, H. A Quinone Based Oligomeric Lithium Salt for Superior Li-Organic Battery. Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, DOI: 10.1039/ C4EE02575J.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN) (C.K.S.) and by the Argonne-Northwestern Solar Energy Research (ANSER) Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Award Number DE-SC0001059 (B.J.E.). This research was also supported by the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR; T.L.D.T.). We acknowledge the Integrated Molecular Structure Education and Research Center (IMSERC) for molecular characterization facilities for NMR spectroscopy supported by Northwestern U., the NSF under grants CHE-0923236 and CHE-9871268, Pfizer, and the State of Illinois. We also thank the Nanoscale 19352
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
(17) Zhu, L. M.; Niu, Y. J.; Cao, Y. L.; Lei, A. W.; Ai, X. P.; Yang, H. X. n-Type Redox Behaviors of Polybithiophene and Its Implications for Anodic Li and Na Storage Materials. Electrochim. Acta 2012, 78, 27−31. (18) Liu, G.; Xun, S. D.; Vukmirovic, N.; Song, X. Y.; Olalde-Velasco, P.; Zheng, H. H.; Battaglia, V. S.; Wang, L. W.; Yang, W. L. Polymers with Tailored Electronic Structure for High Capacity Lithium Battery Electrodes. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4679−4683. (19) Wu, M. Y.; Xiao, X. C.; Vukmirovic, N.; Xun, S. D.; Das, P. K.; Song, X. Y.; Olalde-Velasco, P.; Wang, D. D.; Weber, A. Z.; Wang, L. W.; Battaglia, V. S.; Yang, W. L.; Liu, G. Toward an Ideal Polymer Binder Design for High-Capacity Battery Anodes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 12048−12056. (20) Xun, S. D.; Song, X. Y.; Battaglia, V.; Liu, G. Conductive Polymer Binder-Enabled Cycling of Pure Tin Nanoparticle Composite Anode Electrodes for a Lithium-Ion Battery. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2013, 160, A849−A855. (21) Etacheri, V.; Marom, R.; Elazari, R.; Salitra, G.; Aurbach, D. Challenges in the Development of Advanced Li-Ion Batteries: A Review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3243−3262. (22) Goodenough, J. B. Evolution of Strategies for Modern Rechargeable Batteries. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 1053−1061. (23) Goodenough, J. B.; Kim, Y. Challenges for Rechargeable Li Batteries. Chem. Mater. 2010, 22, 587−603. (24) Larcher, D.; Beattie, S.; Morcrette, M.; Edstroem, K.; Jumas, J. C.; Tarascon, J. M. Recent Findings and Prospects in the Field of Pure Metals as Negative Electrodes for Li-Ion Batteries. J. Mater. Chem. 2007, 17, 3759−3772. (25) Zhang, W. J. A Review of the Electrochemical Performance of Alloy Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 13−24. (26) Aurbach, D.; Gamolsky, K.; Markovsky, B.; Salitra, G.; Gofer, Y.; Heider, U.; Oesten, R.; Schmidt, M. The Study of Surface Phenomena Related to Electrochemical Lithium Intercalation into LixMOy Host Materials (M = Ni, Mn). J. Electrochem. Soc. 2000, 147, 1322−1331. (27) Xu, K.; von Cresce, A. Interfacing Electrolytes with Electrodes in Li Ion Batteries. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 9849−9864. (28) Verma, P.; Maire, P.; Novak, P. A Review of the Features and Analyses of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase in Li-Ion Batteries. Electrochim. Acta 2010, 55, 6332−6341. (29) Zhang, D.; Haran, B. S.; Durairajan, A.; White, R. E.; Podrazhansky, Y.; Popov, B. N. Studies on Capacity Fade of Lithium-Ion Batteries. J. Power Sources 2000, 91, 122−129. (30) Lange, I.; Blakesley, J. C.; Frisch, J.; Vollmer, A.; Koch, N.; Neher, D. Band Bending in Conjugated Polymer Layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 216402. (31) Lange, I.; Kniepert, J.; Pingel, P.; Dumsch, I.; Allard, S.; Janietz, S.; Scherf, U.; Neher, D. Correlation between the Open Circuit Voltage and the Energetics of Organic Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 3865−3871. (32) Lee, J. H.; Shin, J. H.; Song, J. Y.; Wang, W. F.; Schlaf, R.; Kim, K. J.; Yi, Y. Interface Formation between ZnO Nanorod Arrays and Polymers (PCBM and P3HT) for Organic Solar Cells. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 26342−26348. (33) Djurovich, P. I.; Mayo, E. I.; Forrest, S. R.; Thompson, M. E. Measurement of the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital Energies of Molecular Organic Semiconductors. Org. Electron. 2009, 10, 515− 520. (34) Chen, E. S.; Chen, E. C. M.; Sane, N.; Talley, L.; Kozanecki, N.; Shulze, S. Classification of Organic Molecules to Obtain Electron Affinities from Half Wave Reduction Potentials: The Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 9319−9329. (35) D’Andrade, B. W.; Datta, S.; Forrest, S. R.; Djurovich, P.; Polikarpov, E.; Thompson, M. E. Relationship between the Ionization and Oxidation Potentials of Molecular Organic Semiconductors. Org. Electron. 2005, 6, 11−20. (36) Cardona, C. M.; Li, W.; Kaifer, A. E.; Stockdale, D.; Bazan, G. C. Electrochemical Considerations for Determining Absolute Frontier
Orbital Energy Levels of Conjugated Polymers for Solar Cell Applications. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 2367−2371. (37) Pavlishchuk, V. V.; Addison, A. W. Conversion Constants for Redox Potentials Measured Versus Different Reference Electrodes in Acetonitrile Solutions at 25°C. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2000, 298, 97−102. (38) Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2001. (39) Hou, J. H.; Tan, Z. A.; Yan, Y.; He, Y. J.; Yang, C. H.; Li, Y. F. Synthesis and Photovoltaic Properties of Two-Dimensional Conjugated Polythiophenes with Bi(thienylenevinylene) Side Chains. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4911−4916. (40) Mccullough, R. D.; Williams, S. P. Toward Tuning Electrical and Optical-Properties in Conjugated Polymers Using Side-Chains: Highly Conductive Head-to-Tail, Heteroatom-Functionalized Polythiophenes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 11608−11609. (41) Blouin, N.; Michaud, A.; Leclerc, M. A Low-Bandgap Poly(2,7carbazole) Derivative for Use in High-Performance Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 2295−2300. (42) Chen, Z. H.; Zheng, Y.; Yan, H.; Facchetti, A. Naphthalenedicarboximide- vs Perylenedicarboximide-Based Copolymers. Synthesis and Semiconducting Properties in Bottom-Gate N-Channel Organic Transistors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 8−9. (43) Anderson, P. A. The Work Function of Lithium. Phys. Rev. 1949, 75, 1205−1207. (44) Schroeder, P. G.; France, C. B.; Park, J. B.; Parkinson, B. A. Orbital Alignment and Morphology of Pentacene Deposited on Au(111) and SnS2 Studied Using Photoemission Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 2253−2261. (45) Yi, Y.; Lyon, J. E.; Beerbom, M. M.; Schlaf, R. Characterization of Indium Tin Oxide Surfaces and Interfaces Using Low Intensity XRay Photoemission Spectroscopy. J. Appl. Phys. 2006, 100, 093719. (46) Song, C. K.; White, A. C.; Zeng, L.; Leever, B. J.; Clark, M. D.; Emery, J. D.; Lou, S. J.; Timalsina, A.; Chen, L. X.; Bedzyk, M. J.; Marks, T. J. Systematic Investigation of Organic Photovoltaic Cell Charge Injection/Performance Modulation by Dipolar Organosilane Interfacial Layers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 9224−9240. (47) Ciszkowska, M.; Osteryoung, J. G. Voltammetry of Metals at Mercury Film Microelectrodes in the Absence and the Presence of Varying Concentrations of Supporting Electrolyte. Anal. Chem. 1995, 67, 1125−1131. (48) Lindstrom, H.; Sodergren, S.; Solbrand, A.; Rensmo, H.; Hjelm, J.; Hagfeldt, A.; Lindquist, S. E. Li+ Ion Insertion in TiO2 (anatase). 2. Voltammetry on Nanoporous Films. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 7717−7722. (49) Daum, P.; Murray, R. W. Charge-Transfer Diffusion Rates and Activity Relationships during Oxidation and Reduction of PlasmaPolymerized Vinylferrocene Films. J. Phys. Chem. 1981, 85, 389−396. (50) Kadish, K. M.; Morrison, M. M. Solvent and Substituent Effects on the Redox Reactions of Para-Substituted Tetraphenylporphyrin. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 3326−3328. (51) Sawyer, D. T.; Chlericato, G.; Angelis, C. T.; Nanni, E. J.; Tsuchiya, T. Effects of Media and Electrode Materials on the Electrochemical Reduction of Dioxygen. Anal. Chem. 1982, 54, 1720− 1724. (52) Eslami, M.; Zare, H. R.; Namazian, M. The Effect of Solvents on the Electrochemical Behavior of Homogentisic Acid. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2014, 720−721, 76−83. (53) Fleischmann, M.; Hendra, P. J.; Mcquilla, A. J. Raman-Spectra of Pyridine Adsorbed at a Silver Electrode. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 26, 163−166. (54) Andreas, H. A.; Conway, B. E. Examination of the Double-Layer Capacitance of an High Specific-Area C-cloth Electrode as Titrated from Acidic to Alkaline pHs. Electrochim. Acta 2006, 51, 6510−6520. (55) Isse, A. A.; Gennaro, A. Absolute Potential of the Standard Hydrogen Electrode and the Problem of Interconversion of Potentials in Different Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 7894−7899. (56) Trasatti, S. The “Absolute” Electrode PotentialThe End of the Story. Electrochim. Acta 1990, 35, 269−271. 19353
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Research Article
(57) Trasatti, S. The Absolute Electrode Potential: An Explanatory Note (Recommendations 1986). Pure Appl. Chem. 1986, 58, 955−966.
19354
dx.doi.org/10.1021/am505416m | ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 19347−19354
